As will you.
Next!
Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Next!
At the end of the clip, it states "NYE STUDIED MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY AND HAS WORKED AS AN ENGINEER FOR BOEING".
According to futurecurrents' criteria Nye is in no way a climate scientist and should keep his mouth shut about climate science. Nye obviously does not have a scientific research background and his opinions are meaningless according to futurecurrents' assertions on reliable climate research sources.
the count is therefore 1300 skeptical peer reviewed papers to zero peer reviewed papers showing man made co2 causes warming.
Here are 1300 skeptical articles...
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
you have zero that is zero out of 33,000 authors researched and found that man made co2 causes warming (other than some older papers which used now failed models).
Here are 1300 skeptical articles...
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
you have zero that is zero out of 33,000 authors researched and found that man made co2 causes warming (other than some older papers which used now failed models).
Pick one......
The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The 24 rejecting papers have a total of 34 authors, about 1 in 1,000.
Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. If they do, articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, the gold standard of science, will reveal the disagreement.
I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.
I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.
This work follows that of Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase “global climate change.” She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming. Using her criteria and time-span, I get the same result. Deniers attacked Oreskes and her findings, but they have held up.
Some articles on global warming may use other keywords, for example, “climate change” without the "global" prefix. But there is no reason to think that the proportion rejecting global warming would be any higher.
By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17. For an analysis of the 113 citations, see here. Only 50 of the citing articles are truly independent and peer-reviewed.
Of one thing we can be certain: had any of the 24 articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science. If there were such an article, one would not have to hunt for it.
http://www.jamespowell.org/PieChart/piechart.html
So much for "settled science"...
How ‘Settled Science’ Helped Create A Massive Public Health Crisis
http://www.investors.com/politics/c...cience-caused-a-massive-public-health-crisis/
How ‘Settled Science’ Helped Create A Massive Public Health Crisis
http://www.investors.com/politics/c...cience-caused-a-massive-public-health-crisis/
But....but....but....there is a consensus.
But....but....but....there is a consensus.
Yes, an overwhelming one. There are NO respected publishing climatologists that deny man made global warming. None.
Considering this, deniers really seem like idiots.
In the same way, as outlined in the article, there was an "overwhelming" consensus that fat and not sugar was responsible for obesity, heart disease and diabetes. There were no respected publishing scientists who denied fat was the culprit and not sugar. And anyone who said otherwise was brutally treated by the "settled science" crowd funded by the food industry and politicians.
Is this starting to sound familiar?
May we vaya con Dios.
Paris Climate Pact: Too Little, Too Late?
When 195 nations clinched the Paris Agreement in December, it was heralded by some as a monumental achievement—the beginning of a process that would roll back the poisonous fruit of humankind's shortsightedness. Others viewed it as too little, too late.
As officials converge on the United Nations for this week's signing, ominous reports in the four months since have buttressed the doubters: Global warming may hit geological hyperspeed in decades. NASA is projecting that 2016 will break the annual heat record for the third year running; Greenland's ice sheet is experiencing springtime melt weeks earlier than average; and much of West Antarctica is at risk of slipping into the Southern Ocean by 2100, adding a meter to global sea levels. Coastal cities home to millions of people may be underwater during the lifetimes of those born today.
QUICKTAKEA Global Push to Save the Planet
The pact “might not be enough, especially in terms of sea-level rise,” said Rob DeConto, a geoscientist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. DeConto co-wrote the Nature study in March warning of Antarctica's fate. “We really need to go to zero emissions as soon as possible.”
The earth is almost 1 degree centigrade (1.4 Fahrenheit) warmer than it was before the industrial revolution. The Paris accord, at its heart, is about how much warmer we will allow it to become as we retrofit economies to burn less fossil fuel. The negotiators agreed to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees centigrade.”
Scientific disagreements remain, but whether to act isn't one of them. The most important point of contention is precisely how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide. The answer will determine how much time we have left to avoid excessive risk of catastrophe (or, in fact, whether there is any time left at all). Climate Action Tracker is a research group funded by the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation and ClimateWorks. In December, its analysts published estimates of what the national climate pledges in Paris add up to. The answer? Not enough.
The world handily overshoots the potentially dangerous “safe” zone of 2 centigrade warming; the lower target of 1.5 centigrade is fantasy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-19/paris-climate-pact-too-little-too-late
Paris Climate Pact: Too Little, Too Late?
When 195 nations clinched the Paris Agreement in December, it was heralded by some as a monumental achievement—the beginning of a process that would roll back the poisonous fruit of humankind's shortsightedness. Others viewed it as too little, too late.
As officials converge on the United Nations for this week's signing, ominous reports in the four months since have buttressed the doubters: Global warming may hit geological hyperspeed in decades. NASA is projecting that 2016 will break the annual heat record for the third year running; Greenland's ice sheet is experiencing springtime melt weeks earlier than average; and much of West Antarctica is at risk of slipping into the Southern Ocean by 2100, adding a meter to global sea levels. Coastal cities home to millions of people may be underwater during the lifetimes of those born today.
QUICKTAKEA Global Push to Save the Planet
The pact “might not be enough, especially in terms of sea-level rise,” said Rob DeConto, a geoscientist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. DeConto co-wrote the Nature study in March warning of Antarctica's fate. “We really need to go to zero emissions as soon as possible.”
The earth is almost 1 degree centigrade (1.4 Fahrenheit) warmer than it was before the industrial revolution. The Paris accord, at its heart, is about how much warmer we will allow it to become as we retrofit economies to burn less fossil fuel. The negotiators agreed to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees centigrade.”
Scientific disagreements remain, but whether to act isn't one of them. The most important point of contention is precisely how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide. The answer will determine how much time we have left to avoid excessive risk of catastrophe (or, in fact, whether there is any time left at all). Climate Action Tracker is a research group funded by the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation and ClimateWorks. In December, its analysts published estimates of what the national climate pledges in Paris add up to. The answer? Not enough.
The world handily overshoots the potentially dangerous “safe” zone of 2 centigrade warming; the lower target of 1.5 centigrade is fantasy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-19/paris-climate-pact-too-little-too-late